This study evaluated the antibacterial activity of various liquid hand washes against common bacteria. 195 hand samples were collected from unwashed hands, hands washed with liquid soap or plain soap, and hands of glove users. Samples were cultured and bacteria isolated included E. coli, P. aeroginosa, Enterobacter spp., B. subtilis, S. dysenteriae, Staph. aureus, and Staph. epidermidis. Liquid soaps reduced bacterial counts more than plain soap. Dettol soap showed the highest antibacterial activity based on minimum inhibitory concentration values, followed by Lux, Lifebuoy, Johnson & Johnson, and Safeguard. Minimum bactericidal concentration values were 2-3

1. IOSR Journal of Pharmacy
(e)-ISSN: 2250-3013, (p)-ISSN: 2319-4219
www.iosrphr.org Volume 4, Issue 2(February 2014), Pp 19-23
Antibacterial Activity of Liquid Hand Washes Against Daily
Encounter Bacteria
Ahmad Naeem Sajed1, Dr. Shagufta2, Dr. Sajjad Haider2, Prof. Dr.Nosheen
Wasim Yousaf2, Dr. Imran Ahmed3 Shan Ali4, Dr. Sadaf Imran3
1,
Emergency Services Academy Rescue 1122 Lahore Pakistan
Pathology Department Allama Iqbal Medical College Lahore Pakistan
3,
University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences Lahore Pakistan
4,
Institute of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology The University of Lahore
2,
ABSTRACT: Hands are out in the open to a lot of substances which comprises of dirt touching during
personal hygiene, raw and contaminated materials. Bacteria are deposited on skin from external source causing
variety of infections. Cleaning hands with antibacterial hand washes stops the spread of bacteria or loose
transient flora preventing cross infections. 195 samples were used for determination of MIC and MBC of
different antibacterial hand washes with inoculations of a variety of bacteria. Phenol was used as control to
measure up its activity with liquid soaps. In the list of liquid soaps, safeguard was found with highest efficacy in
terms of its minimum inhibitory concentration against Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli while
Johnson and Johnson baby liquid soap had maximum activity against various microorganisms. In order as
Johnson and Johnson > Dettol >Safeguard >Lifebuoy >Lux. Staphylococcus aureus had growing resistance
against various liquid soaps as Safeguard < Johnson and Johnson < Dettol < Lifebuoy < Lux liquid soaps.
Escherichia coli had lessen in sensitivity against various liquid soaps as Safeguard > Johnson and Johnson >
Lifebuoy > Lux > Dettol. The MBC values were found to be two to three times greater than its MIC values. The
results prove that liquid soaps have a greater effect on inhibition and removal of bacterial population than plain
soaps.
KEYWORDS: Liquid soaps, activity, pathogenic bacteria
I.
INRODUCTION
Hands perform the many functions of the human body and are open to a variety of substances which
take account of dust, different body fluids, raw and contaminated materials from environment and during
personal hygiene1. Cleaning hands with antibacterial hand washes stops the spread of microbes or loose
transient flora thus preventing infections2. After washing hand with liquid hand washes there remain a layer on
our skin exterior, this layer protects our normal flora of hands ensuing low rate of different nosocomial
infections3. The simple act of washing hands with soap can cut the risk of diarrhea by more or less half and
respiratory tract infections by a third. This makes hand washing a better option for disease prevention than any
single vaccine4.Hands that are apparently soiled or potentially tainted with muck or organic material must be
washed with liquid soap and water.
The significance of hand washing is more vital when it is allied to health care workers because of
possible contagion of bacteria that can be pathogenic or opportunistic5. Studies have revealed that liquid soaps
contain antimicrobial active ingredients which take away more bacteria as compared to plain soap3. For control
of Staphylococcal infections in hospitals and other health cares, it has been found that the greatest benefits from
hand washing came from the first 20% of washing and very petite additional benefits were gained when hand
clean-up rate was increased beyond 35%. Washing with plain soap results in more than triple the rate of
bacterial infectious diseases transmitted to food as compared to washing withantibacterial hand washes.
Comparing hand washes with alcohol-based solutions and washing with antibacterial for a median time of 30
seconds, each one showed that the alcohol-based hand washes reduced bacterial contamination 26% more than
the antibacterial. But liquid soap and water is the more effective than alcohol-based hand rubs for reducing
H1N1 influenza A virus and Clostridium diffcile spores from hands6. The results of a clinical trial with HIV
patients found that liquid soap decreased itching symptoms 100% and infectious wounds and abscess7. Modified
detergents are added in their formulation that enhances their antibacterial activity. So as to all Pakistani branded
liquid soaps like Dettol, Lux, Johnson and Johnson, Lifebuoy and Safeguard have ability to remove 65% to 85%
bacterial population, prevailing on human skin8. Excellent hand germ-free surface cleaning and disinfection can
diminish the possibility of spreading diseases. Bacteria can multiply and grow up in the homes for the most part
19

2. Antibacterial Activity Of Liquid Hand…
in the kitchen, bathroom and laundry areas. The maximum count of bacteria in the kitchen and bathrooms are
found in wet and soaked areas around the cloths for wiping and or drying kitchen surfaces and the areas
around the bathroom sinks9. Liquid hand washes contain a substance triclosan that may represent a latent public
health risk in regard to development of concomitant resistance to clinically important antibacterial10 but the
number of studies elucidating the alliance between triclosan assistance and resistance to other antibacterial in
clinical isolates has been limited.
II.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This study was conducted in Microbiology Llaboratory Pathology Department, Allama Iqbal
Medical College Lahore Pakistan.
Sample collection
Sterile cotton wool swab sticks wetted by sinking in normal saline were used to collect samples from
different peoples (students, laboratory staff, sweepers and teachers). A sum of 195 samples comprising 75 from
unwashed hand, 75 from washed hand with liquid soap and bars and 45 from those people who used gloves
were collected. As many area as possible of each hand were swabbed and more than one swab stick was used for
each hand. The swab sample was brought to the Microbiology laboratory for further processing.
Table 1 showing nature of samples and its collection from various age groups
Sr.
No.
1
2
3
Age
15-20
20-30
30-40
Unwashed
25
30
20
Nature of samples
Washed
25
30
20
Total samples
Glove user
15
15
15
65
75
55
Sample processing
Collected samples were processed by swab on nutrient agar. The media was prepared according to the
manufacturer instructions and after preparation and sterilization poured into the plates. The plates were then
incubated for 24 hours to check the sterility of the media.
Isolation of bacteria
Colonies that were grown on nutrient agar were sub cultured on Blood agar, MacCon key agar and
EMB agar for isolation of various bacteria. The plates were incubated for 24 hours at 37 ºC. Bacterial colonies
that developed on the plates were then identified by colony morphology, microscopy of isolated bacteria and
various biochemical tests11.
Determination of MIC by Broth Micro Dilution
Two fold serial dilutions of disinfectants were prepared and subjected against broth culture of bacteria.
These two fold dilutions of disinfectants were added in micro titer plate’s wells, eight in vertical and twelve
horizontal. Each micro tube was filled with 100 µl (0.1ml) without two dilution of hand wash concentration in
appropriate wells with the help of micropipette. Then 50 µl culture broths of each selected bacteria were added
in each dilution well to inculcate. Then those plates were covered with sterilized cover made up of plastic. These
micro titer plates were incubated for 24 hours at temperature of 35 to 37 ºC. After incubation these plates were
placed under magnifying mirror to compare the growth and inhibition of bacterial growth in each well. Turbidity
in wells showed as haze or pellet in the bottom of well12.
Turbidity analysis method
The growth of the selected bacteria in the broth medium with varied concentration of hand washes were
determined by turbidity analysis method. In all the bacterial maximum turbidity was recorded at lower
concentration of hand washes except a few whereas the minimum value was recorded at higher concentration of
hand washes13.
Determination of minimum bactericidal concentration by agar method (MBC)
MBC of hand washes were determined by inoculated 10 µl of the broth incubated with various
dilutions, hand washes which were cultured on Muller-Hinton agar plate and incubated for 24 hours at 35 to 37
ºC. Then growth was checked by observing bacterial colonies on the plates and compare with the standard
broths of selected bacteria without hand washes. The reduction of growth to 99.9% at various dilutions of hand
washes in each well of the micro titer plate considered as MBC of hand washes dilutions.
20

3. Antibacterial Activity Of Liquid Hand…
III.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Bacterial isolated colonies that developed on the culture plates (on nutrient agar, blood agar, maconkey
agar, and EMB agar) were counted in number and in percentage on microbial colony counter. The Escherichia
coli was 28% in unwashed hands while those washed with liquid soaps did not show any growth pattern, in the
case of gloves used were 6.67% and those used plane soap 1.02%. Colonies of Pseudomonas aeroginosa were
counted in unwashed hands 17.33%, it was grow in those hands that were used liquid soap and plane soap1.02%
but glove user’s colonies were counted 2.22%. In Enterobactor species 10.67% colonies were isolated in
unwashed hands and no growth were determined in those who were washed their hands with hand washes, in
glove users 4.44% colonies were counted. In unwashed hands 14.67% colonies of Bacillus subtilis were
counted, in the case of liquid and plane soap and glove users there was no observed isolated bacterial colony.
Percentage showed in unwashed hands of Shigella dysenteriae 9.33% and for plane soap were 2.05, there is no
growth pattern when washed with liquid soap and in the case of glove user colonies were 2.22%.The
Staphylococcus aureus was 12% in unwashed hands while 1.02% was for isolated colonies counted in washed
hands with liquid and plane soap and in glove user was 4.44%. Staphylococcus epidermidis was isolated from
unwashed hands 8.00% and from glove users 2.22% but there was no isolated colony found in the case of hand
washes.
Table 2 Percentage of Isolated Bacteria from unwashed hands, glove users and washed with hand washes.
Unwashed
Sr.
No.
Isolated Bacteria
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
E. coli
P. aeroginosa
Enterobacter spp.
B. subtilis
S. dysenteriae
Staph. aureus
Staph. epidermidis
NO.
21
13
08
11
07
09
06
%
28.00
17.33
10.67
14.67
09.33
12.00
08.00
Washed
(Liquid Soap)
NO.
%
Washed
(Plane Soap)
NO.
%
NO.
00
02
00
04
00
02
00
02
01
00
00
04
02
00
03
01
02
00
01
02
01
00.00
01.02
00.00
00.00
00.00
01.02
00.00
1.02
0.51
0.00
0.00
2.05
1.02
0.00
Glove User
%
6.67
2.22
4.44
00.00
2.22
4.44
2.22
E - Escherichia, P- Pseudomonas, B- Bacillus, S- Shigella, Staph - Staphylococcus
These results illustrate that liquid soap significantly depressed the bacterial population than plane
soaps. Similar result have deduced by Toshima in 200114. Actually the liquid soaps hold ingredients (Iodophor
and Triclosan). Triclosan is a bactericidal and appears to act upon several non specific targets. Washing with
liquid soap is enough to diminish bacteria. Plane soap is less effective than liquid soap. This was also confirmed
by Connie and George from London in the Text Book of diagnostic Microbiology that liquid soaps have a
greater effect on inhibition and removal of bacterial population than bars 11.The minimum inhibition of
concentration detected on different dilutions of selective hand washes like Lux, Safeguard, Lifebuoy, Dettol and
Jonson and Jonson. MIC determined in micro titer plate in which well add inoculums of growth bacteria and
diluted hand washes. On two dilution bacterial growth were high. Dettol > Lux > Lifebuoy > Jonson >
Safeguard > 38096 > 26710 > 25944 > 5892 > 4098. It was observed the low growth on 3 rd dilution not
minimum. On 4th dilution at 50 ml inoculums and 100 µl disinfectants, 24572 > 17882 > 12286 > 9214 > 8304
tested the concentration of bacterial growth by a turbidity analysis in micro titer plate. On1ml/100 µl diluted
sample was high bacterial concentration of Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeroginosa, Staphylococcus aureus
and Shigella dysenteriae, no growth of Bacillus subtilis. When increased the dilution at 10ml/100 µl Escherichia
coli showed moderate growth as well as in Pseudomonas aeroginosa also in Staphylococcus aureus and no
growth of Bacillus subtilis. On 50ml/100 µl showed low bacterial growth of Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas
aeroginosa, and Staphylococcus aureus. Growth of Bacillus subtilis inhibited. On 4th dilution we got mandatory
results. Comparable results were also suggested by Hughes in 1996 that antimicrobial property of hand washes
was very useful against some pathogenic organisms such as multi-drug-resistant pathogens such as
Staphylococcus aureus15. Antibacterial soaps considered to be more effective than plain soaps our study
suggests that liquid hand washes are more efficient against Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria than plain
soaps16. The results have revealed that MIC has increased with the passage of time as compared to previous
researches.
21

4. Antibacterial Activity Of Liquid Hand…
MBC of hand washes were determined by inoculated 10 µl of the broth incubated with various
dilutions hand washes, which were cultured on Muller-Hinton agar plate and incubated for 24 hours at 35 to 37
ºC.
Then growth was checked by observing bacterial colonies on the plates and match up to the standard broths of
selected bacteria without hand washes.
Table 3 Reduction Percentage of Isolated Bacteria for MBC
SR.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Test Organisms
Reduction 15 seconds
Reduction 30 seconds
Reduction 60 seconds
E. coli
P. aeroginosa
B. subtilis
Staph. aureus
Staph. epidermidis
Enterobacter Spp.
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
99.8%
99.9%
99.9%
>99.9%
99.9%
>99.9%
99.8%
99.8%
99.9%
>99.9%
99.9%
>99.9%
99.8%
99.8%
99.9%
E - Escherichia, P- Pseudomonas, B- Bacillus, Staph - Staphylococcus, S- Shigella
The minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) is the lowest concentration in µl / ml of samples that
results in more than 99.9% killed of the bacteria being tested. The decline of growth to 70% at 50 µl dilution of
hand washes in each well of the micro titer plate as MBC of hand washes dilution. I required a 99.9% reduction
of growth. Then 100 µl of hand wash at that rate of dilution. MBC were determined 90% reduction of growth
again added 1000 µl diluted hand wash in micro titer plate the growth were checked its 99.9% reduction of
growth. According to Shahida Hasnain 2009 at Lahore Pakistan, MBC of hand washes were determined by
inoculated 10 µl of the broth incubated with various dilutions hand washes 13. My results are different than
Shahida Hasnain because of my determined MBC. Much of the debate regarding antiseptic products has focused
on the use of antibacterial hand wash that contain the active ingredient triclosan. Actually triclosan possesses
mostly antibacterial properties but also some antifungal and antiviral properties. Minimum inhibitory
concentration disinfectants were determined by broth dilution method. Minimum bactericidal concentration
(MBC) of liquid soaps was determined by agar method. Phenol was used as control to compare its activity with
liquid soaps. The MBC values were found to be two to three times greater than its MIC values. The results
confirmed that liquid soaps have a greater effect on inhibition and removal of bacterial population than plain
soaps.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Most of the people do not even bother to use hand washes in our daily life. Nobody knows the
significance of liquid hand washes even these are much better than plain soaps due to their ingredients and
effectiveness on our skin of hands and as well as suitable for all type of skin might be that was most sensitive.
Mostly hand washes protect us from many daily encounter bacteria.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am very thankful to Pathology department, Allama Iqbal Medical College Lahore Pakistan.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
Johnson SA, Goddard PA, Iliffe C, Timmins B, Rickard AH, Robson G, and Handley PS, Comparative susceptibility of resident and
transient hand bacteria to para-chloro-meta-xylenol and triclosan, J. Appl. Microbiol. 93, 2002, 336-344.
Vineeta, A. F., Nursing staff workload as a determinant of methicillin-resiatant
Staphylococcus aureus spread in an adult intensive therapy unit. J. Hosp. Infect., 43, 2006. 109-113.
Lucet, J.C., Rigaud, M.P., Mentre, F., Kassis, N., Deblangy, C., Anderemont, A. and Bouvet, E., Elimination before and after
different hygiene techniques: a randomized clinical trial. J. Hosp. Infect., 50, 2002. 276-280.
Yolande, Y. L., and K. Bressler, The dirt on soap. 49, 2010, 53-55.
Richards, M. J., Edwards, J.R., Culver, D. H., Gaynes, R.p., Nosocomial infections in medical intensive care units in the United
States. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. Crit. Care Med., 27, 1999, 887-892.
Jabbar, S. A., Comparative susceptibility of resident and transient hand bacteria to parachloro meta-xylenol and triclosan. J. Appl.
Microbiol., 93, 2010, 336-344.
Allison, The growth of microfunhi on carbohydrates in softsoaps. In Single Cell Protein. Tannenbaum and D. I. C. Wang Eds., MIT
Press Cambridge MA, 2005, 314.
Cheesbrough, M., District Labopratory Practice in Tropical Countries, Part., 2. Cambridge University Press Cambridge, 2001.
Aiello, A., 2008. Consuimer antibacterial soaps: effective or just risky? Clin Infect Dis., 1:454 Suppl 2: S137-147.
Kaiser NE, Newman JL. Formulation technology as a key component in improving hand hygiene practices. Am J Infect Control, 34,
2006, 81.
Connie, R. M and Geropge, M., In the Text Book of diagnostic Microbiology connie RM George M. 6 th Ed. WB saunder. London,
United Lindom, 2000, p 327.
22

5. Antibacterial Activity Of Liquid Hand…
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
Rama, W.A., APIC guideline for swelection and use of disinfectants in hand hygine. Amer J Infect Control, 24(4), 2001, 313-342.
Shahida, H., Antibacterial activity of soap against daily encountered bacteria. Afric journal of biotechnology, 8(8), 2009, 14311436.
Toshima Y, Ojima M, Yamada H, Mori H, Tonomura M, Hioki Y, Koya E, Observation of everyday hand-washing behavior of
Japanese and effect of antibacterial soap, Int. J. Food Microbiol. 68, 2001, 83-91.
Hughes, J. M., Director, National Center for Infectious Diseases, 1996.
McMurry LM, Oethinger M, Levy SB. Triclosan targets lipid synthesis. Nature, 1998, 394:531–2.
23